Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[humbleman]

I get that, and I'm not suggesting that he should be protected from the consequences of his actions.

But does that justify the actions in this case? Does it justify his employer getting threatened? Or his family being threatened? Are death threats against him (which are illegal) justified and acceptable because his beliefs are considered bad enough that the rule of law should be suspended in this case?

- - - Updated - - -

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

Or alternatively, defending the right of both employers and individuals to be free from threats of violence on the basis of their beliefs.

That is a separate issue. Duh.

Well, no, that's actually the issue in this case.

Nobody wants to be known as "The place that nazi guy works at." You can argue the merits or lack thereof of a system that allows companies to fire employees for expressing their views, but I think you'd get more traction arguing that point when conglomerate owned media companies phase out employees with viewpoints they don't like than you will trying to stand up for a neo nazi who openly proclaims himself such.

Up to the 80's, a city in Virginia, Falls Church, was called something similar, "the city were nazis live at".

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-nazis-were-rewarded-with-life-in-the-u-s

"How Thousands Of Nazis Were 'Rewarded' With Life In The U.S."

It happens that when the war was in progress and near the end, lots of nazi officials "made deals" with the allies in order to save their skin, betrayed Germany at the exchange of living freely in another country, and many came into the US.

They were in contact very often to give more information about Germans, and they lived in areas surrounding the Pentagon.

Those were "real nazis", and lots of people knew they were nazis, and so far nobody made complaints.

Today, we have a person who by ideals -or money- supports the nazi agenda, but he is not a real nazi, just a sympathizer.

Why to remove him from his job?

The nazi organization in the US counts with about one thousand small groups spread in different states. From which the greater group has merely 400 members. The rest are about 5 members, if you want to be generous, no more than 20,000 nazi members.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201505131022115065/

"Up to 1,000 neo-Nazi organizations are legally operating in the United States..."

http://www.hitlerschildren.com/article/1208-neo-nazis-today-a-growing-concern

"In the USA, several neo-Nazi groups exist. The National Socialist Movement is the largest and boasts about 400 members. Due to the strong free-speech laws in America, groups are allowed to protest peacefully. However, numerous cases involving American neo-Nazis attacking or harassing Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities are reported every year and vandalism of minority-owned property is common as well."

You just can't form a political party with that amount of members.

You just can't say that they are capable of cause chaos in the entire country.

I don't say they are not dangerous if we talk locally in a small town, but at a country level they have no power at all.

Somebody for some reason is inflating the image of these nazis, because they do have the right to follow the doctrine of their choice, even if their doctrine is rejected by us, they have the right to follow it.

If I was the one fired because an inclination for nazi doctrines, surely I would sue the company because at this moment, regardless of how bad was the nazi image in the past, today the nazi doctrine is not even an intellectual enemy of the US.

If the victim of discrimination because his beliefs sued the company, my hope for him is to win.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I get that, and I'm not suggesting that he should be protected from the consequences of his actions.

But does that justify the actions in this case? Does it justify his employer getting threatened? Or his family being threatened? Are death threats against him (which are illegal) justified and acceptable because his beliefs are considered bad enough that the rule of law should be suspended in this case?

- - - Updated - - -

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

Or alternatively, defending the right of both employers and individuals to be free from threats of violence on the basis of their beliefs.

That is a separate issue. Duh.

Well, no, that's actually the issue in this case.

Nobody wants to be known as "The place that nazi guy works at." You can argue the merits or lack thereof of a system that allows companies to fire employees for expressing their views, but I think you'd get more traction arguing that point when conglomerate owned media companies phase out employees with viewpoints they don't like than you will trying to stand up for a neo nazi who openly proclaims himself such.

Up to the 80's, a city in Virginia, Falls Church, was called something similar, "the city were nazis live at".

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-nazis-were-rewarded-with-life-in-the-u-s

"How Thousands Of Nazis Were 'Rewarded' With Life In The U.S."

It happens that when the war was in progress and near the end, lots of nazi officials "made deals" with the allies in order to save their skin, betrayed Germany at the exchange of living freely in another country, and many came into the US.

They were in contact very often to give more information about Germans, and they lived in areas surrounding the Pentagon.

Those were "real nazis", and lots of people knew they were nazis, and so far nobody made complaints.

Today, we have a person who by ideals -or money- supports the nazi agenda, but he is not a real nazi, just a sympathizer.

Why to remove him from his job?

The nazi organization in the US counts with about one thousand small groups spread in different states. From which the greater group has merely 400 members. The rest are about 5 members, if you want to be generous, no more than 20,000 nazi members.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201505131022115065/

"Up to 1,000 neo-Nazi organizations are legally operating in the United States..."

http://www.hitlerschildren.com/article/1208-neo-nazis-today-a-growing-concern

"In the USA, several neo-Nazi groups exist. The National Socialist Movement is the largest and boasts about 400 members. Due to the strong free-speech laws in America, groups are allowed to protest peacefully. However, numerous cases involving American neo-Nazis attacking or harassing Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities are reported every year and vandalism of minority-owned property is common as well."

You just can't form a political party with that amount of members.

You just can't say that they are capable of cause chaos in the entire country.

I don't say they are not dangerous if we talk locally in a small town, but at a country level they have no power at all.

Somebody for some reason is inflating the image of these nazis, because they do have the right to follow the doctrine of their choice, even if their doctrine is rejected by us, they have the right to follow it.

If I was the one fired because an inclination for nazi doctrines, surely I would sue the company because at this moment, regardless of how bad was the nazi image in the past, today the nazi doctrine is not even an intellectual enemy of the US.

If the victim of discrimination because his beliefs sued the company, my hope for him is to win.

Suppose a guy got a job as a lifeguard in a black community at a private pool. Most swimmers were minorities. Management found out he was a Nazi and saw that as a risk to swimmers. Therefore, they fired him. You claim you would like him to sue the management. On what legal grounds is your lawsuit? Note that the Nazi lifeguard was working for a private company, not part of a union, and recognized as an at-will employee in his state.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I get that, and I'm not suggesting that he should be protected from the consequences of his actions.

But does that justify the actions in this case? Does it justify his employer getting threatened? Or his family being threatened? Are death threats against him (which are illegal) justified and acceptable because his beliefs are considered bad enough that the rule of law should be suspended in this case?

- - - Updated - - -

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

Or alternatively, defending the right of both employers and individuals to be free from threats of violence on the basis of their beliefs.

That is a separate issue. Duh.

Well, no, that's actually the issue in this case.

Nobody wants to be known as "The place that nazi guy works at." You can argue the merits or lack thereof of a system that allows companies to fire employees for expressing their views, but I think you'd get more traction arguing that point when conglomerate owned media companies phase out employees with viewpoints they don't like than you will trying to stand up for a neo nazi who openly proclaims himself such.

Up to the 80's, a city in Virginia, Falls Church, was called something similar, "the city were nazis live at".

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361427276/how-thousands-of-nazis-were-rewarded-with-life-in-the-u-s

"How Thousands Of Nazis Were 'Rewarded' With Life In The U.S."

It happens that when the war was in progress and near the end, lots of nazi officials "made deals" with the allies in order to save their skin, betrayed Germany at the exchange of living freely in another country, and many came into the US.

They were in contact very often to give more information about Germans, and they lived in areas surrounding the Pentagon.

Those were "real nazis", and lots of people knew they were nazis, and so far nobody made complaints.

Today, we have a person who by ideals -or money- supports the nazi agenda, but he is not a real nazi, just a sympathizer.

Why to remove him from his job?

The nazi organization in the US counts with about one thousand small groups spread in different states. From which the greater group has merely 400 members. The rest are about 5 members, if you want to be generous, no more than 20,000 nazi members.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201505131022115065/

"Up to 1,000 neo-Nazi organizations are legally operating in the United States..."

http://www.hitlerschildren.com/article/1208-neo-nazis-today-a-growing-concern

"In the USA, several neo-Nazi groups exist. The National Socialist Movement is the largest and boasts about 400 members. Due to the strong free-speech laws in America, groups are allowed to protest peacefully. However, numerous cases involving American neo-Nazis attacking or harassing Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities are reported every year and vandalism of minority-owned property is common as well."

You just can't form a political party with that amount of members.

You just can't say that they are capable of cause chaos in the entire country.

I don't say they are not dangerous if we talk locally in a small town, but at a country level they have no power at all.

Somebody for some reason is inflating the image of these nazis, because they do have the right to follow the doctrine of their choice, even if their doctrine is rejected by us, they have the right to follow it.

If I was the one fired because an inclination for nazi doctrines, surely I would sue the company because at this moment, regardless of how bad was the nazi image in the past, today the nazi doctrine is not even an intellectual enemy of the US.

If the victim of discrimination because his beliefs sued the company, my hope for him is to win.

Nazi doctrines are however incompatible with US democracy and moral concepts. By its existence a true or substantial democracy attracts undemocratic elements.

 

[humbleman]

Suppose a guy got a job as a lifeguard in a black community at a private pool. Most swimmers were minorities. Management found out he was a Nazi and saw that as a risk to swimmers. Therefore, they fired him. You claim you would like him to sue the management. On what legal grounds is your lawsuit? Note that the Nazi lifeguard was working for a private company, not part of a union, and recognized as an at-will employee in his state.

Is any solid evidence that the Nazi regime targeted the black race for extermination? Did Nazis invaded Africa and killed millions of aborigines over there?

What solid evidence you have to assure that a Nazi sympathizer will be a threat if he works in a swimming pool in a black community? Do you have any background -as police files, records- showing Nazi ideals followers letting their ideals overcome their duties at their job places? Or, are you just having the thought as a prevention?

If I were to fire people because their beliefs or ideals, it should be dangerous an atheist working as janitor in a religious denomination headquarters. I myself can be an atheist but having interest studying religion as a topic not to worship a god. If my research is good, and the findings strong in deciphering scriptures, for you I can't qualify for giving a speech about my studies, and I think such is not fair.

About this guy who was fired because his ideals, have you checked what was the environment in his job place in order to consider him a dangerous person?

 

[humbleman]

Nazi doctrines are however incompatible with US democracy and moral concepts. By its existence a true or substantial democracy attracts undemocratic elements.

Say no more.

For you it is time to check for communism followers at work places and fire them.

Wish you the best.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Nazi doctrines are however incompatible with US democracy and moral concepts. By its existence a true or substantial democracy attracts undemocratic elements.

Say no more.

For you it is time to check for communism followers at work places and fire them.

Wish you the best.

Then you agree it would end up purging non-sheeple as well.
)

 

[Underseer]

Just to recap...

Hovater comes from a town where kkk killed person/people.

He ran for office as a white nationalist. Said he was always a white nationalist.

Co-founding member of party went to group meet up with kkk to burn crosses. That member got a slap on the wrist from united alliance group because they are supposed to appear modern and mild.

Hovater helped to organize charlottesville. He was interviewed on the street where he pretended to be an average joe. He said he converted to white nationalism after seeing white poverty in Appalachia.

Meanwhile, his group plans a white takeover of Appalachia with purges of theoretically unknown methods but in practice we know how the purges would happen.

Hovater works as a cook at a restaurant with wife and brother-in-law. Took 2 day trip to charlottesville. Restaurant would have known what was going on.

Months after Charlottesville, ny times does a puff piece on this guy and his average joe schtick. Not well-researched. Calls him your nazi next door with mild midwestern manners. People make a stink. Restaurant alleges they received threats and hovater and crew are forced to pack up as average joe "victims" of the regressive the left.

In reality the restaurant knew he was a nazi all along. They would have had to let him go because their business was being boycotted. There could in theory have been threats, too, but i doubt the restaurant is a reliable source.

Fascist propaganda probably...

Whoa, whoa, whoa there!

First, you're not allowed to call them white nationalists, white supremacists, Nazis, or fascists anymore. We're supposed to call them "alt right free speech advocates" in order to avoid triggering conservolibertarian snowflakes.

Also, you're not allowed to criticize alt right free speech advocates unless you use a "both sides" argument to try and make them seem less bad. By failing to do this, you could trigger most Republicans and establishment/moderate Democrats.

Now apologize for being politically incorrect!

I would like to apologize to the entire board for being politically incorrect. Apparently, we are no longer supposed to call white supremacists "alt right." The new politically correct term for white nationalists, fascists, et. al. is "identitarians."

Again, I deeply apologize if I triggered any conservatives or libertarians (who are completely different, honest) by using politically incorrect terminology.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Even if rousseau were a Nazi? What if that belief was part of Naziism?

It's the conduct that matters.

Let me get this straight - firing a Nazi because he is a nazi is a no-no because political beliefs are not relevant but firing a Nazi for sharing those irrelevant political beliefs is okay. Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.

We have freedom of thought and expression but conduct by way intimidation and violence isn’t included. The differences can apply to scenarios taking into account the circumstances. If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that.
Mein Kamph is legal giving anyone the chance to ridicule it. It’s even in Hebrew.

http://mein-kampf.yola Isite.com/#!

 

[laughing dog]

Let me get this straight - firing a Nazi because he is a nazi is a no-no because political beliefs are not relevant but firing a Nazi for sharing those irrelevant political beliefs is okay. Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.

We have freedom of thought and expression but conduct by way intimidation and violence isn’t included. The differences can apply to scenarios taking into account the circumstances. If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that.

You do realize your position as stated is literally incoherent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Let me get this straight - firing a Nazi because he is a nazi is a no-no because political beliefs are not relevant but firing a Nazi for sharing those irrelevant political beliefs is okay. Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.

We have freedom of thought and expression but conduct by way intimidation and violence isn’t included. The differences can apply to scenarios taking into account the circumstances. If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that.

You do realize your position as stated is literally incoherent.

It's coherent

 

[laughing dog]

You do realize your position as stated is literally incoherent.

It's coherent

This sentence of yours is a prime example of incoherence "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that."

 

[whichphilosophy]

You do realize your position as stated is literally incoherent.

It's coherent

This sentence of yours is a prime example of incoherence "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that."

I wrote 'potentially' in italics to quote it from your post

 

[laughing dog]

This sentence of yours is a prime example of incoherence "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that."

I wrote 'potentially' in italics to quote it from your post

Not only the sentence incoherent, but so is your response.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You do realize your position as stated is literally incoherent.

It's coherent

You said:

Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.

In a court 'potentially' without actual event needs substantiation. Being a Nazi in itself may not be sufficient in a wrongful dismissal suit.

 

[laughing dog]

You do realize your position as stated is literally incoherent.

It's coherent

You said:

Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.

I was summarizing your position.

In a court 'potentially' without actual event needs substantiation. Being a Nazi in itself may not be sufficient in a wrongful dismissal suit.

Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You said:

Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.

I was summarizing your position.

In a court 'potentially' without actual event needs substantiation. Being a Nazi in itself may not be sufficient in a wrongful dismissal suit.

Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

POTENTIALLY which is your modifier means possibly but not at that time a reality. So sharing his beliefs would or would not upset employees.

 

[laughing dog]

I was summarizing your position.
Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

POTENTIALLY which is your modifier means possibly but not at that time a reality. So sharing his beliefs would or would not upset employees.

Thank you for the irrelevant grammar lesson.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You said:

Firing a Nazi because as a Nazi he/she scare or intimidate or traumatize other employees is a no no, but firing a Naziing for potentially upsetting employees by sharing his/her irrelevant beliefs is okay.

I was summarizing your position.

In a court 'potentially' without actual event needs substantiation. Being a Nazi in itself may not be sufficient in a wrongful dismissal suit.

Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

Not when I italicized it.

- - - Updated - - -

I was summarizing your position.
Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

POTENTIALLY which is your modifier means possibly but not at that time a reality. So sharing his beliefs would or would not upset employees.

Thank you for the irrelevant grammar lesson.

It's relevant.

 

[laughing dog]

I was summarizing your position.
Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

Not when I italicized it.

- - - Updated - - -

I was summarizing your position.
Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

POTENTIALLY which is your modifier means possibly but not at that time a reality. So sharing his beliefs would or would not upset employees.

Thank you for the irrelevant grammar lesson.

It's relevant.

No, it is not. Your position is that firing a Nazi for scaring/traumatizing an employee is a no-no, but it is okay to fire a Nazi for sharing his/her beliefs that may or may not upset an employee. Instead of directly dealing with that ridiculous stance, you engage in pointless pedantry about the implication of the word "potential". The pedantry was irrelevant, and your responses are irrelevant.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not when I italicized it.

- - - Updated - - -

I was summarizing your position.
Your sentence in question is "If he shared his beliefs he would or would not upset employees as potentially precedes that." - is incoherent as written.

POTENTIALLY which is your modifier means possibly but not at that time a reality. So sharing his beliefs would or would not upset employees.

Thank you for the irrelevant grammar lesson.

It's relevant.

No, it is not. Your position is that firing a Nazi for scaring/traumatizing an employee is a no-no, but it is okay to fire a Nazi for sharing his/her beliefs that may or may not upset an employee. Instead of directly dealing with that ridiculous stance, you engage in pointless pedantry about the implication of the word "potential". The pedantry was irrelevant, and your responses are irrelevant.

That's not what I said

firing a Nazi for scaring/traumatizing an employee is a likelihood depending on what was done. As for sharing beliefs that is a likelihood depending on what was done. Potential can infer maybe. Maybe can mean maybe not.